Jewish voters are near the top of the list of voting blocs Obama will have to reach out to as he turns to the general election. From appearances in synagogues to meetings with Jewish groups and even an interview with an Israeli newspaper, Obama's courtship shows some signs of paying off, with a recent Gallup Poll suggesting Obama leading Sen. John McCain 61 percent to 32 percent among Jewish voters.

...Still, Obama's lead among Jewish voters is a smaller margin than other Democratic nominees have enjoyed. And doubts about Obama's stands on Jewish issues and Israel stubbornly persist in segments of the community, in part due to methodical campaigns against him by his conservative critics.

The article barely mentions Hillary Clinton's greater support among Jewish voters even though it reports that while only 2% of the population is Jewish, the Jewish vote is important in "classic swing states" like Florida and New Jersey, both of which Hillary won. [More...]

As to Hillary vs. Obama in the primaries,

With all this, Obama has received significant Jewish support in the Democratic primaries. In Pennsylvania, Sen. Hillary Clinton outpolled Obama 62 percent to 38 percent among Jews, but in Massachusetts he edged her 52 percent to 48 percent. In a recent nationwide Gallup Poll, Jewish voters preferred Clinton to Obama 50 percent to 43 percent, a notable but hardly overwhelming margin.

The article mentions many concerns Jewish voters have with Obama. One concern that I've written about a few times is his "friendship with controversial figures as Palestinian activist Rashid Khalidi." Khalidi is a scholar and professor and some dispute he is an "activist" but even so, there are concerns. See here and here and here. On his shifting positions in Illinois politics, see here.

Some other criticisms:

"He speaks with extraordinarily empty platitudes about the Middle East," said Herbert London, president of the conservative Hudson Institute, who is Jewish. Of Obama's openness to talking with dictators, London is contemptuous: "That is almost child's play. It is adolescent talk you might hear from a 14-year-old."

...Some have complained that Obama is getting foreign policy advice from experts such as Robert Malley and Zbigniew Brzezinski, who are seen as less friendly to Israel, though Obama's campaign says the two are merely among hundreds of people who have offered counsel. Earlier this month, Malley severed his ties to the Obama campaign.

From a New York legislator:

"Since we don't have a lifetime of experience with him, we need to know who he is, this man who has suddenly come on the scene, who is very exciting, a good speaker and handles himself beautifully," said New York Assemblyman Dov Hikind. "We don't want to be fooled by these things that at the end of the day don't matter that much."

Obama supporters say his support for Israel is top-notch. It may be, but it has increased since he decided to run for national office in 2004 and sought and accepted the support of billionaires like the Crown family.

Crown and his wife, Paula Crown, are members of Obama's National Finance Committee and have raised more than $200,000 for the Obama campaign, according to a list of fundraisers posted on Obama's campaign website.

[H]e empathized with the views of his Palestinian friends before adroitly courting the city’s politically potent Jewish community.

The article says the Dems don't need to worry about Obama's losing the Jewish vote to McCain:

Jews have not favored the Republican nominee over the Democrat since 1920, and that was because 38 percent of Jews went even further left and voted for Socialist Eugene Debs. In the 2004 election, Democrat John Kerry won 76 percent of the Jewish vote.

If the Democrats really cared about the Jewish vote, why wouldn't they be raising with superdelegates the fact that Hillary's support with them is solid and proven.

Instead, we get news article that barely mentions her except for a few statistics and give no details on her positions on Israel.

the picture perfect candidate that scores on all things Democratic, but we have to instead try to push a candidate that barely has his bonefides on anything...like trying to push the step sisters big foot into Cinderella's slipper....LOL...

I'm not pushing Obama. I won't vote for McCain, but I'm working very hard to not care too much about this election. I get too involved emotionally in these things, and I really would like to not freak out when we lose this time. I just don't think Obama should win. I'm not even sure he should, even though I can't believe I'm saying that (I'm a long-time blind Dem supporter).

my lesson in 2004: Don't get too emotionally involved. If Obama's the nominee, I'll be an independent. If he loses, it'll be fine with me. I actually hope he loses because I think he would be a worse President than McCain.

In 2004, I also became very emotionally invested, and then was devastated - because of Kerry's loss, yes, but more importantly, because of what I learned about a lot of people and what they were willing to do, say, and tolerate in order to tear someone down and win.

In 2008, everything is starting to feel the same to me, but this time the people that I'm learning about are democrats, not republicans. So this is worse.

I think you're right about learning to not get too involved. Sometimes ignorance is bliss.

that in 2004 everything that was said about the GOP ended up being true: Bush is beholden to the fundamentalists and the big money interests. In 2008 it seems that the stuff the GOP has been yelling about looks true: Dems are weak and the party is full of college professors and their students who have sway over everything.

We seem to be living in parallel universes. Where I live, nothing that the GOP says looks true. Iraq is a quagmire, the economy is a mess and gas is almost $4 a gallon. As a result, Republicans have taken significant losses in three very red Congressional special elections in the last six weeks. The Dems look strong and are getting stronger. 2008 is going to be a banner year for the party.

about what the GOP says about Dems in general:
They're effette, wimpy, clueless and elitist. Obama meets all those descriptions.

The congressional elections don't mean jack when it comes to Obama vs. McCain. I've heard this time and again in previous years. In previous years they had no predictive value as to what was going to happen in Nov.

Consindering that Childers threw Obama under the bus and ran over him, I would think that if he's at the top of the ticket then we had better hope that the lower ticket candidates are able to separate themselves from them. Besides, Childers agrees with the GOP on lots of issues.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the GOP criticism to which you refer will gain any traction with voters this year. The Congressional speicial elections mean a great deal. Such races have historically proven to be harbingers of things to come. Do you not recall the election of Richard Vander Veen in 1974 to Gerry Ford's seat that foreshadowed Democratic gains in the wake of Watergate? I remember it well. And we are witnessing a similar political environment. Childers's opponent tried to hang Obama around his neck to no avail. The voters rejected such tactics and Childers proved victorious. This will be a great year for Democrats.

send money and vote for him, by absentee ballot in PA. We had just moved to FL, but when we got our driver's licenses, the DMV had a glitch and we were not automatically registered to vote as we had requested on the form. So, in a panic, we sent for the absentee ballots and voted the whole card, then sent them back overnight mail to make sure they got there in plenty of time. But I knew then it was a failed campaign, Kerry just never caught fire and I knew the American public would stick with the known quantity since we were in the middle of the war, etc. I hoped they wouldn't go with Bush, but I had a feeling they would. Of course, if Katrina had shown up a year earlier, Bush would have been toast. But she didn't, and he wasn't. Sigh.

Obama will be toast against McCain in Nov. if he's the nominee? I do. I think with a war still going on, that the voters won't trust Obama on national security and since he isn't making a case to vote for him based on the economy, then I think people will say "well, at least McCain will keep us safe."

I agree with you totally. Fear is a great motivator, and Obama is a complete unknown who refuses to define himself. People underestimate what a strong opponent McCain is, too. They think the ge will be a cakewalk, that it'll be all smiles and handshakes instead of knives and daggers.

Time and time again, Americans have shown that they want their leader to appear strong and decisive. There is no room for equivocation when the economy, our international reputation and our military is on the line.

The fear card will no longer play. It is spent. People are most afraid of the continuation of the failed policies of the Bush administration. Therefore, McCain is toast. He represents the past. Obama represents the future. A new day will dawn. We will turn the page.

and McCain can fall back on his maverick stance. The one that the GOP used against him for being too liberal. He is a smart politician and Obama is going to be dissected by the GOP in the GE. He doesn't have the spine or the balls for a knock-down drag out fight. McCain will make mincemeat of him. Easily.

He's not. He has a solid reputation as a moderate who hates Bush and only puts up with him for the welfare of the Party. The far right hates McCain. Moderates love him. If they had picked just about anybody else, or if we had picked anybody else, Democrats would be in the oval office come January. But they didn't, and we didn't. It's going to be painfully close.

What we don't need is some kind of early warning mechanism there, what we need is a willingness to put something on the line in helping the situation. Putting something on the line might mean alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import; it may more crucially mean sacrificing--or investing, I think, more than sacrificing--billions of dollars, not in servicing Israel's military, but actually investing in the new state of Palestine, in investing the billions of dollars it would probably take, also, to support what will have to be a mammoth protection force, not of the old Rwanda kind, but a meaningful military presence. Because it seems to me at this stage (and this is true of actual genocides as well, and not just major human rights abuses, which were seen there), you have to go in as if you're serious, you have to put something on the line.

Unfortunately, imposition of a solution on unwilling parties is dreadful. It's a terrible thing to do, it's fundamentally undemocratic. But, sadly, we don't just have a democracy here either, we have a liberal democracy. There are certain sets of principles that guide our policy, or that are meant to, anyway. It's essential that some set of principles becomes the benchmark, rather than a deference to [leaders] who are fundamentally politically destined to destroy the lives of their own people. And by that I mean what Tom Friedman has called "Sharafat" [Sharon-Arafat]. I do think in that sense, both political leaders have been dreadfully irresponsible. And, unfortunately, it does require external intervention.... Any intervention is going to come under fierce criticism. But we have to think about lesser evils, especially when the human stakes are becoming ever more pronounced. Link

Advisors, even former advisors, recommending military intervention in Israel might not be the way to win hearts and minds.

who wrote a prize-winning book about the history of genocide. She is on the side of the angels and regular people.

It may be time to impose the two-state solution because it won't happen on its own and this situation poisons our attempts to fight terrorism in the musim world, hard to have the moral high-ground when we support Israel NO MATTER WHAT they do.

Smanatha Powers may be on the side of the angels in your opinion, but she's also an academic and woefully ignorant of the probable consequences of her angelic advice. Frankly, this is pure neo-con thinking. Cheney would be proud.

How are we supposed to militarily impose a solution on Israel, without a fight? That's just too stupid for words.

and you are not the first person to point out the affinity between the thinking of Samantha Power and that of the neocons. Stephen Holmes years ago wrote an excellent book review of her genocide book, A Problem From Hell, that also points this out:

But the most eye-catching feature of `A Problem from Hell' is Power's palpable frustration with multilateralism and legalism. An important clue to this aspect of her thinking is the approval with which she cites Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, two unilateralist hawks associated with the current Bush Administration. During the 1990s, they both urged US military intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo outside the framework of the UN and contrary to its Charter. Power thinks they were perfectly right. The Rwanda debacle was partly a result of UN dithering and incoherence. Indeed, the UN's credibility had earlier been severely damaged on the streets of Mogadishu. In the 1990s, therefore, human rights advocates did not speak deferentially about the UN. On the contrary. Uncertain of their mandate in Rwanda and focused on self-protection, the hapless Blue Helmets allowed themselves to be disarmed before ten of their number were brutally murdered. Referring to the passivity of the US as the catastrophe unfolded in Rwanda, Power remarks: `The United States could also have acted without the UN's blessing, as it would do five years later in Kosovo.' Formulated more pungently, acting decisively sometimes requires a great power to extricate itself from the hopeless mishmash of multilateralism. ...

....

[T]he proponents of humanitarian intervention, in the 1990s, were among multilateralism's least forgiving critics. Power writes in this spirit. Clinton embraced `consultation', she tells us, whenever his Administration lacked a clear policy of its own. In that sense, too, multilateralism is a sign of weakness. When it comes to atrocities, she implies, the US should simply have told its allies what it was going to do. From the same perspective, she also comments unflatteringly on the Yugoslav war crimes tribunal. The tribunal was initially established, she correctly explains, in order to avoid taking military action. In emergency situations, more generally, legalism can prove as debilitating as multilateralism. Due process can get in the way of an adequate response to genocide. We need to move swiftly and flexibly against the worst international villains even if this means unleashing lethal force on the basis of hearsay testimony and circumstantial evidence: `an authoritative diagnosis of genocide would be impossible to make during the Serb campaign of terror.' Indeed, pre-emptive deployment of troops on the basis of clues collected by operatives in the field might be the only way to stave off a Rwanda-style massacre. The very idea of a war against genocide probably implies a relaxed attitude towards mens rea: `Proving intent to exterminate an entire people would usually be impossible until the bulk of the group had already been wiped out.' Careful observance of procedural niceties will impede any speedy response to an unfolding massacre.

Deference to public opinion is equally inappropriate, Power continues, especially when the electorate is self-absorbed, parochial and fixated on body-bags. One wonders if her lack of sympathy with the widely reported public aversion to military casualties might have anything to do with the infrequent human contact between human rights activists and the families of the grunts who would be asked to die to uphold vaguely worded international laws. In any case, she also suggests that chronically reticent military should be rolled over by morally attuned civilian leaders in order to confront wicked forces in the world. Faced with humanitarian atrocities in distant lands, any American official or citizen who claims to see shades of grey or two sides of the story, or who claims not to know exactly what is happening in the interior of a distant country, is probably feigning ignorance to deflect calls for action and to get the US off the hook. Some of those who declare murderous situations inside closed societies to be indecipherable by distant foreign observers are simply liars, while others are accomplices to genocide. If Power does not say exactly this, she comes close.

I have a hard time disagreeing with Power's fundamental point, which is that we err way too often on the side of caution in these situations. I thought the Kosovo intervention was correct but belated. I thought and still think we should have acted on Rwanda.

But drawing the line on when and where to intervene militarily in other countries' messes is totally unclear and it needs major, major public dialogue. The idea of "imposing" a two-state solution on Israel via military force is, of course, completely insane.

We need people like Power making the case for less caution-- but from the outside of government. Let her lead a big noisy public pressure movement. I'd probably join. But keep her the heck away from any actual authority to do anything or even advise anything.

about Power and Cooper. Certainly Cooper was a critic of the Clinton Admin but he was also just a tool of the insurance industry in the '90s. Power I think is like a lot of idealists in that they think the US can correct all the world's problems. They just fail to take into account the consequences, sometimes unintentional and long lasting, of the potential actions. There is a lot to be said for practicing realpolitick.

is realize that the USA cannot solve the world's problems and militarily stay the hell out of it. We can help by being more of an honest broker in negotiations and, only if asked, helping with the settlement. Anything else is aggression on another sovereign nation.

What everyone has been doing up til now, decade after decade, has not worked. The Israelis try to negotiate but no one can control every extremist, so one idiot bombs something and the Israelis end the negotitation immediatly, and another decade goes by.

It just might be time to think out of the box. And we give them about 4billion a year for their military, every bomb they drop has America's name on it, so I actually think we have something to say about how they act. Or we can cut them off and they can continue this stand-off forever.

I have no problem with using our economic relations with Israel, or any other nation, to further our own goals. One of those goals would of necessity be a more peaceful Middle East. Even in this case, we need to be an honest broker and fair to all sides.

As far as no solution ever, well so long as one nutcase can kill a potential deal, you're right. But in mature negotiations, where even a modicum of trust has been established, that one nutcase would be denounced by both sides and the deal would go forward. For that to happen, we need the right actors on all sides. I expect that will occur one day.

Israel is a particurly good idea or one that the angels would encourage. Of course, if Obama wants to take this idea out on the campaign trail, he is welcome to do so. I would prefer he did it before he becomes the official nominee.

is the people he choses to associate with and his advisors. His lack of experience will necessitate him leaning heavily on his advisors and I'm not confident that he is knowledgeable enough about various subjects to know when they might be leading him and the country in the wrong direction.

Iran, etc, attack Israel. Israel counter attacks with a nuke as an act of last resort. Israel exists no more, millions of Jews are massacred. Again. While America stands by.

Why is this even a debate? It is a moral imperative for the US to assure the Middle East-and the world-that any attack on Israel will be seen as an attack on the United States.

Pogroms, genocide, ethnic cleansing...when it happens in Darfur, it is an international tragedy. When it will happen in Israel without our protection, it's open for debate. Ah, yes, why not risk the lives of the few Jews we have left in this world after the Holocaust as an academic exercise? It seems to be a liberal luxury to not only forget the sins of our past, but to advocate history repeating itself.

but this really seems to me a strawman argument. I'm not aware of any serious politician, certainly not any of the three presidential candidates, who are waffling on support of Israel in the core way you suggest. There is no such debate, as far as I've ever heard.

And realistically, Iran isn't going to attack Israel, with nukes or anything else. They have never shown actual military belligerence in any direction, and they know full well the U.S. would come down on them like a hammer, whether the U.S. proclaims publicly in advance that it would do that or not.

but we won't see eye to eye on this. Israel will nuke back, but it'll be retaliation rather than prevention. The hatred of Jews knows no logic. It has been going on for...ever.

The problem with Obama on this issue is the same problem on every issue: where he stands is not clear. I repeat: equivocation on his part on this particular issues is horrifying in its consequences. If certain enemies see any reluctance on the part of the US to protect Israel, then they will attack. This is not about land or territory; it is about hatred.

The fact that we're nearly up to 200 comments on this thread proves the point: Obama's position is too nuanced.

it may more crucially mean sacrificing--or investing, I think, more than sacrificing--billions of dollars, not in servicing Israel's military, but actually investing in the new state of Palestine, in investing the billions of dollars it would probably take,

I only know what's in this excerpt. Isn't she proposing that instead of supporting Israel, we give all the money to the new Palestine state that we are going to impose on Israel? Isn't that something the Jews would tend to disapprove of?

How do you impose a solution without deciding what that solutions should be? Would Powers kick the Israelis out of Jerusalem? Would she forcibly kick Israeli settlers out of the West Bank? Would she remove all Palestinians from within whatever borders of Israel she proposes? What would she do with Golan? Would Israel lose its (alleged) nukes? Where is the border with Lebanon to be drawn? Is Gaza independent (she says "two-state" so I guess not? What level of armament is allowed for the Palestinian states?

The reason for the conflict is because the two (or more) sides can't agree on the answers to these questions (which is why it is called a "conflict"). Saying we will "impose a solution" is a naive way of saying that these questions don't matter and that can devise a simple middle path that everyone will accept. It is the kind of hubris that led us to believe we could tear down and rebuild Iraq (or 1950's Iran, or 1980s Nicaragua and Honduras and Guatemala, or 1970's Chile or 1904 Cuba) and that we would be greeted with flowers.

There is no getting around that Obama belongs to a very extreme church with its own anti-Israel views and, in addition, it has very close ties to the Nation of Islam and Louis Farrakhan. He either needs to have a meeting with church leadership and get some sort or guarantee or he needs to quit. If he doesn't, it will make an already bad situation, much, much worse.

Unfortunately, AFAIK, that is also the ONLY church that Obama has belonged to. He learned Wright's version of Christianity only. I am not a fan of BLT and it certainly doesn't fit someone who styles himself a "Uniter".

I really don't see the voter base to win. AA's, college kids, and web heads...??? Ask the over 50 crowd, the blue collar workers, the rural/suburban people? He is gonna be crushed. Other than the web heads and very liberal voters, the rest are unreliable voters. It has been proven.

If Sen Clinton has such a strong base, why is she trailing in all the agreed-upon metrics (total votes, pledged delegates, states won)? It is because of this that Sen Obama is having the steady stream of superdelegates go his way (how many has he had since Super Tuesday and how many has she had).

Either she has been unable to mobilize her base to beat him, or her base is not enough to get the nomination.

...on states won. The same is true of popular vote. The only metric that counts for more than a talking point is DELEGATES -- both pledged and superdelegates. The popular vote in Puerto Rico -- which has no electoral votes in November -- has no bearing on the race whatsoever.

As I understand Democratic Party rules, those territories each get a few delegates in Denver. But the popular vote in those places has no value in the nominating process other than as a talking point that could theoretically influence superdelegates. And I don't think the outcome of the popular vote in Puerto Rico is going to mean much to SDs when Puerto Rico has no electoral votes in the fall. Demonstrating political strength in a place without voters ain't a winning argument. Anyone who tries to make that argument is desperately grasping at straws.

Those victories in red states are important. You might not understand -- being an independent, not a Democrat ;) -- but such victories are important to building a long-term Democratic majority. Building the party in those states helps in down ballot races this year, setting the stage for Democrats to turn those red states to purple and then to blue in the future. With the far-sighted visionary leadership of Barack Obama, we are about to witness the birth of a new progressive era.

Everyone, including me, loved this 50-state strategy so much for exactly the reasons you say, but now I'm wondering: the cost that has been exacted during this primary, with so many groups alienated from the party - will it all just equal out now btw new democrats and those that drop out?

That's where the 60-40 number resides--in imagination. It's certainly not in reality. He doesn't even have those numbers among Democrats, yet Obama supporters think he will get 60% among the general voting population. He will magically do better among the general public than FDR, JFK, and Clinton--not to mention Nixon and Reagan. The only modern president that I can find who hit that level of support in his first election was LBJ, and his first election was really a re-elect.

Despite the unpopularity of Bush and the GOP right now, the country is still sharply divided. Absolutely nothing in Obama's past shows that he can (or will) rise above these divisions to win an election with broad support, and nothing in his record shows he has taken risks to stand up for anything. Just about everyone who is going to join the "movement" and vote for him probably already has, and he still has less people voting for him than Hillary.

The Obama campaign has already given up on several states for the general election. It's time to stop pretending he will win big red states like Texas and Georgia. His campaign can't even put together a list of states they can win to reach 270 electoral votes in November. 60% majority talk is just too far from reality, and is the kind of wishful thinking that is going to put McCain in the whitehouse.

but since the poaching of a Clinton pledged delegate by Obama this week, those are kind of out the window. At the end of the primaries, I expect Obama to lead in delegates and Clinton to lead in popular vote. At that point, they both have a case to make to the super d's. One will win and the other not, that's the way it works.

If Hillary wins, I'm happy and go on supporting her. If Obama wins, my tepid support for McCain becomes full blown and it's on the the general election.

in the big states, where she's won hundreds of thousands of votes. Obama has won caucuses in red states with a comparatively small amount of votes, which has amassed him far too many delegates to be fair and equitable. Under a just system she would already be the nominee. And then there are Michigan and Florida. The DNC and its outlandishly stupid method of counting votes and voters has made an absolute travesty out of this primary election. If Obama is handed the nomination, Clinton and her supporters have every right to consider themselves cheated. And America will be the biggest loser.

the Hamas "endorsement." I'm not going to be manipulated by anyone trying to play on people's fear of terrorism, whether they be the terrorists themselves or members of our own government.
I do, however, care that one of his advisers was meeting with Hamas. That is a far greater transgression in my mind, and even if the media is ignoring that situation now, I have no doubt it will make a comeback in the GE.

not until it gets closer to the GE and probably only after Clinton convinces them to vote for Obama. I don't know how she does it. She is a true team player because I know she will fight to help him get elected, if he lets her. I live in AZ so I feel right now that I will vote the down ticket and write in Clinton. McCain will take AZ anyway. Maybe it is just because I am so pissed about how the media is not only dissing Clinton but totally ignoring Obama's problems. Also, she will get no credit when she campaigns for him. I just feel sick at the thought of it all right now.

before I saw this necessary reminder; please feel free to delete my comments up there . . . because this is a terrific thread and teaching me a lot about Obama on this very serious issue of Israel, close to my heart and that of my neighbors. I'm in a neighborhood with many recent Russian Jewish immigrants and an orthodox synagogue, and the very informed commenters here are helping me understand not only more about Israel but more about the sentiments on my own block about this campaign.

The problem all American candidates have is that there is no current support here among any class of voters for any one practical solution.
-A one state solution results immediately in Jews being outpopulated in that state which means the end of an expressly Jewish state. Sixty years of the current mess has produced a much larger Palestinian population than existed in 1948, and you can't simply tell all of the refugees that they will be refugees forever to suit your other goals. As it is, there are in Israel vacant Israeli Arab villages held vacant for sixty years, lest their reoccupation by the persons who once lived there rekindles other 'give me my land back' claims to places now populated by Israeli Jews, some of whom live next door to their former land. Under all three solutions, the right of return to the disputed land by refugees elsewhere since 1948 and what happens with the Dome of the Rock/site of Second Temple and the claims of both sides to a capital in Jerusalem are presently insoluble as there are Never factions on both.
-A two state solution only works if both of the two states each have a fair share of the resources necessary to survive and a viable means of going forward, now missing. The West Bank settlement movement has complicated that endlessly by settling where the water and the fields are and then demanding their claim to the lands given them by God be recognized and defended over against any claims of any kind of any Palestinian.
-The current mess is unstable and unlikely to be maintainable for much longer, owing to populations of refugees in places like Lebanon which have been radicalized by Hezbollah and other organizations, which now seek to destabilize the neighbors as a way of gaining a launching pad for plans against Israel. A religious 'reformation' in Islam seeking to go back to fundamentals, and a tradition dating to the Crusades of rejecting invaders does not help.
Nor does US meddling, such as in trying to thwart a mostly-done peace deal which Israel on its own is working on with Syria which involves the Golan Heights, another place full of Israeli 'settlers,' which Bush is resisting.
Bush has promised already the impossible, a peace treaty by Christmas.
I have not seen much of anything from either McCain nor Clinton which will move off option 3, although neither has any notion other than endless 'support of Israel.' At least Obama is thinking on the issue of some sort of parity of rights as human beings for Palestinians, without getting into the religious promises argument which only faith can deal with.
The current NYT reporting and opinions on the occasion of Israeli Independence Day indicates a gap between Israelis and Americans not related to the Evangelicals as it is.
Anybody here got anything better.

in IL mentioned Obama's work with Palestinian rights groups in IL as an example of his ability to bridge divides between people with different ides on the same subject. But, from what I've read, Obama abandoned the Palestinian rights groups when he started courting the Jewish vote.

My understanding of that was that the Palestinians involved were immigrants settled in Chicago, and that the help related to helping them settle in as new immigrants IN CHICAGO. I'm not sure that's on point to a sensible Holy Land policy, but that is my understanding.

Your conclusion, however, is (sorry) all wet. In this case, we have a pretty strong Clintonian record go look to. I applaud Obama's occasionally expressed concern for the Palestinians, but I have zero confidence in his will or his competence to do anything useful about it. McCain is totally a lost cause on the issue, I agree.

Whatever Clinton's campaign rhetoric may be, we know where she's coming from and what her approach would be when it got down to brass tacks. And personally, I think her much maligned "nuclear umbrella" idea for all states in the Middle East is a giant step that could be the beginning of a breakthrough with the Arab states.

I couldn't understand the point of showing that Democrats didn't win the Appalachia area in 2000 and 2004. The Democratic candidate didn't win the General Election in those two years either. So, logically, looking at the maps, a candidate MUST WIN Appalachia in order to become president.

Dear Mr. Blow;
I am puzzled by your May 17 OpEd piece "Skirting Appalachia." Perhaps a few paragraphs were left out or struck by your editor?
You seem to take it as a given that Barack Obama would win Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, without explaining how this might happen-despite the fact that he lost all three primaries by significant margins. Not to mention actively blocked strategies to seat Florida's delegation. Likewise your apparent conclusion that were Sen. Clinton to drop out of the race, the Democratic Party would simply unite around Obama as the nominee. This sort of magical thinking seems congruent with a lot of what the Obama (and now McCain) campaigns are promoting: lots of bright shiny futures without any mention of how we're going to get there. This type of substance-free, rah-rah, "trust me" argument is eerily reminiscent of the 2000 campaign of George W. Bush. We all know how well that turned out.

I think that your thinking readers deserve better. Better a thoughtful analysis of the reasons for Sen. Obama's losses in Appalachia, with or without a strategy for winning over those voters, than a fluff piece like this one. Obama's weaknesses are a lot bigger than just blue collar folks (the traditional Democratic base) and as this campaign has gone on, positions have hardened significantly-in a lot of ways that don't look good for him if he is the nominee.

"It's pretty clear that the only democrats who will be expected to fix the division that Obama has created are the Clinton supporters."

This is the crux of the mess, in my opinion. If the Clinton supporters do anything less than fall into line perfectly behind Obama and he loses the GE, then we all know where the blame will be for that loss. And if their support is conspicuously less than 100% and he should somehow win without them, then he's well on his way to reshaping the Dem. party, but not in a way that most people (even many Obama supporters, I suspect) would be happy with.

If he crowns himself on Tuesday, he will convince a whole lot of people that there is something very wrong with going through due process.

Why can't he wait for the vote to take place and be counted and recorded and final in Denver before claiming that he is the nominee of the Democratic Party?

What is the rush? Why risk alienating so, so many people and driving off so many rank and file general election voters?

You can feel the backlash forming as more and more women are saying that this is too much. This disrespectful, aggressive push to get Hillary out or to make people think she's out, is not sitting well with 3/4 of the people by Pew's new poll. And that is somehow Hillary's fault?

Obama has not won the nomination and, if he doesn't clean up his program by tomorrow night and stop trying to strongarm a win, it won't be just mainly women who are too upset to select him for their President.

Donna Brazile. Seriously, this is a very scary-looking cat, but very imposing (almost 20 pounds). And very dominating and noisy. But the noise that comes out of him sounds like Jon Stewart doing Dick Cheney.

The combination, with Cheney's voice coming out of Brazile, is a bit upsetting to have around the house. But my kids won't let me get rid of the nasty beasty. Maybe I could send him to the DNC or CNN so Donna could achieve her dream of dominating two places at once?

in the house. Just gets his way by bullying -- sometimes. But the two-month-old female kitten already has figured out how to fake him out, outwitting the nasty beasty entirely. I take that as a feline omen that Brazile-like bullying won't work outwit a female with brains . . . like a certain candidate who's the cat's meow.:-)

Who hate black people. And older voter's who can't accept change. And Floridians and residents of Michigan, who deserve to be punished for the "crimes" of their state Party leaders. And rural people, who are avowed right-wingers because they are bitter about being poor and oppressed.

You think you're bonding with Hispanics by saying that? I know Hispanics who'll beat the crap out of you for saying that.

Look, your candidate had every advantage but she managed to lose. Calling Hispanics a bunch of racists or calling Obama a racist won't put Hillary over the top. I am so happy that people like you represent only a fraction of Clinton supporters. The overwhelming majority are not so embittered and delusional.

If Obama is so weak how did he manage to beat a vastly stronger, better known opponent who started out with a 100+ SD advantage? Obama has demonstrated every single measure of strength farsightedness. Hillary, on the other hand, has been a study in mismanagement and incompetence. As an example, she's gone through about 10 different slogans since Iowa. What serious candidate does that?

Obama obviously has put together a better coalition than Clinton. The primary season is designed to weed out the weak so that only the strongest is left standing. Only in alternative universe of sections of the Internet is the losing candidate considered the stronger GE choice.

2025 and the nomination. Once Obama has 2025 everyone will call it, including the media which wants to get on with the GE. The notion that this is going to the convention is a farce. Clinton is not suicidal. Even if she were it's not in her hands. There are mechanisms in place to end it and it will be ended by the second week of June.

Surely you jest. Can you imagine what the current results would be if the media had treated Hillary as it has treated Obama? Or even if it had remained neutral? And the tragi-comic aspects of this is that Obama supporters think he's deserving of the fawning adulation he's received. Well, just wait....

I think even Mondale broke 65% of the Jewish vote. But I think Obama will have to do two things to improve his numbers: 1) drop the messianic quasi-religious tone of his candidacy (this will be hard, and he might refuse); and 2) emphasize McCain's relationship with the extreme religious right.

Hillary, of course, would have nothing in particular to prove with Jews.

furthermore that is the group that believes in the Great Beast whose number is 666. I can guarantee, I think, that if members of the Obamanation* continue to talk about Hope and Change and the One who will bring them, sooner or later the fundamentalists will start to wonder if Obama is the AntiChrist who will seduce and then enslave the world.

*my fabled NYC repub friends today were laughing over that word, which they heard on TV today for the first time. Gee--even I did not get it from reading it only!

Church and state separation is very important, but it is one issue and it is by no means a Jewish issue -- there are millions of Americans who would go to the mat over this issue, not just Jews. Israel is very different, both because it is not directly about our own government, but also because of the personal, emotional and psychological ties to it that many Jews feel. These are two very different issues, and they are by no means mutually exclusive.

I'm not sure how you get to the understanding that support of Israel is central or not, but it is pretty damn important. Currently, Obama talks the talk about Israel, but as with so many things, it is easy to imagine that this is yet another example of Obama tailoring his rhetoric to the situation because he needs to, not necessarily because it reflects his true beliefs.

I don't feel I can trust Obama's word on Israel in much the same way I don't feel I can trust his word on reproductive rights, or universal healthcare or any of a number of other issues.

And reproductive rights, btw, is another issue that Jewish voters tend to feel very strongly about -- there are many reasons that Jews may be uncomfortable about Obama -- but to say that Israel is not a central concern is just wrong.

were saying about McCain. What I was commenting on was your contention that Israel is not central. I believe that it is. Even if McCain were to truly try to merge church and state, he would have a much more difficult time of it if for no other reason than he would need to enlist the help of the other branches of government to do so. On the other hand, a president can order military intervention all on his or her own. In terms of balancing the two, I don't think most people believe that we're in any real danger of McCain establishing a theocracy -- a more immediate concern for American Jews is the relationship of Israel and the U.S.

It's only during his panderfest for the nomination that McCain has had any issues with this. He'll get back to his normal episcopalian self for the general election. Since he's always been more-or-less a Teddy Roosevelt republican, I doubt it's a worry.

Jews remain so fundamentally Democratic. They know that, whatever McCain actually believes, he is owned by the American bigot base, just like Bush was. Or do you think he'll be getting the bulk of his Electoral College Votes from New York and Maryland?

Bush appointed judges with a world view to which most American Jews are allergic. You can take it to the bank that McCain will too. Obama, should he be the nominee, will win a majority of the Jewish vote against McCain. It's just a question of how overwhelming that majority will be.

the "bigot base," as has been noted elsewhere on this thread, Evangelical Christians are huge supporters of Israel. (It has also been discussed the reasons for this, and and how it can be problematic -- so I won't go into it again.) So, if the part of the bigot base that you are referring to is anti-Semitic (which is not an unreasonable assumption), whatever their wishes, they are not going to manage to outflank the Zionist Christians -- they are not going to see their anti-Semitism rewarded in terms of policy.

Obama just had to fire an advisor who was meeting with Hamas. That is a topic of greater discussion right now amongst many, many Jews than anything about McCain. McCain is a known quantity, Obama is not. The things that we continue to learn about Obama are not reassuring, not only to Jews, but to many other reliably Democratic groups.

I am saying that I believe that Obama has problems with Jewish voters, and I don't believe those problems are going to go away after the primary ends. Just like he has problems with women that I don't think are going to go away after the primary ends. John Kerry received 77% of the Jewish vote; Obama may get a majority, but nothing like what Kerry, Gore or Clinton got.

The Solomon Project did an in-depth analysis Jewish voters in the last presidential election. When they broke the vote down by age and gender, they found that Jewish women voted for Kerry by a huge percentage. Obama now has problems with both women and Jews -- he's giving us reasons to distrust him from both angles and I do not believe that he is likely to get anywhere near the support that Kerry got. Will he still get a majority of the Jewish vote? Sure. Will that be enough? I don't know, but added to the corrosion of support from other groups -- he has problems.

The report notes that one relatively strong Republican subgroup among Jews includes Jewish men under 30 years of age, who voted 35 percent for Bush in one survey. The report found that the strongest Democratic subgroups included Jewish women who were 60 years of age or older (who voted 90 percent for Kerry) and Jewish women under 30 years of age (who voted 88 percent for Kerry).

this afternoon 5/18 and I'm certain a substantial number turning out are Jewish. Mrs. Clinton canceled a televised town hall meeting on one of the Portland major stations yesterday. Today one county where Bill and Chelsea are speaking in Oregon instructed their Hillary supporters not to attend but phone bank for Hillary in OR and Kentucy instead.

I see that Clinton is yet again humiliated and has surely lost except for her being too selfish to step aside. Thank you for letting us know, and good on you for spotting all those Jews in that massive crowd. Must've been hard with the throng. We appreciate your intrepid reporting.

and complete and total boredom with The Obamatrol that is 1jane. Is there someone we can write to and ask for her to be taken off the rotating schedule? The tediousness is such that my jaw is beginning to ache from yawning.

I get the PR reason for trying to be the "nominee" before your time and it might have worked before Bush did this in 2000. But since Bush 2000 is the comparator, I expect any coronations will fall flat with rank and file voters.

Our support of Israel is imperative. If we do not stand with them, and for them, then they will be no more. The inaction of the United States prior to entering WWII is one of the most shameful periods of our history. No one here need be reminded of what happened then.

We cannot equivocate on this matter. Israel must be under the umbrella of protection the United States military affords. The message must be loud and clear; unfortunately, these are two traits Obama is not known for.

Most Democratic voters in Oregon live in the cities, such as Portland, with conservative voters concentrated in the rural east and south. Voters are more likely to be tertiary educated and to have chosen Oregon because of its liberal attitudes. Kentucky is rural, more religious, and conservative. (Portland OR newspaper; emphasis added.)

I bet a lotta lawyers here will be surprised to hear that they must'a earned their fancy degrees from vocational schools.

I mean, how elitist can these folks get? (I suppose the last laugh comes when one of those Liberal Elites calls some tertiarilly educated schmoe to unclog their toilet and has to pay triple overtime because it's the weekend and they can't wait till Monday because they've suddenly realized that, yes indeed, their sh*t really does stink...)

and I don't care what anyone wants to say about Israel's tactics and Palestine yada yada yada -- the presence of Israel is the very balance of power in keeping peace in the Middle East. It is imperative that the US stands strongly with Israel for its own good, our own good and the world's own good.

He just needs to be clear on what his position is going forward. He can't have it both ways, trying to get support from everyone by telling them what they want to hear. I think there is a lot of merit in the Palestinian cause and I think the US being one-sided for Israel in the Middle East is a big mistake. But Obama needs to take a clear position either way.

"Where there is smoke there is fire and he's had a very troubling history of saying whatever it takes to get voters of certain demographics."

This is a larger problem with Senator Obama than the question of Jewish voters and his views on Israel. We don't know enough about Senator Obama's core views and values on a host of issues. How to trust what one does not know?

...my cousin's husband is a pilot for the military and he detests Israel's policies towards the Palestinians. Since we once argued about whether Senator McCarthy was an American hero I tend to doubt his leftist bona fides. We got into an argument over Israel a few years ago, after he compared its policies to the Nazis.

I certainly wouldn't go that far, but when you look at Israel's policies it is pretty clear they are playing the colonial game.

there will be no Israel. Withdrawing our support, or indicating a lack of serious support, would mean genocide like we have not seen in nearly 70 years.

It is morally imperative that we stand with them. We can talk about peace, we can negotiate treaties, but nothing will stop the enemies of Israel if we do not stand in their way. Military might is all they respond to.

You believe in Israels right to exist as a state or you don't. If we deny them autonomy and stop defending them, they will be obliterated. I don't want that. There has to be a better option. The Arab nations have been using the Palestinians as pawns to be sacrificed to try to weaken Israel. Israel has sometimes over-reacted, but they are fighting for their nation.

book "O! Jerusalem" about the birth of the Israeli state despite the horrifyingly abrupt withdrawal of the west, I've tried to keep educating myself on this. But everything I've read ever since still brings home the main point that, sadly, it must be a strongly militarized country. Because it is surrounded by strongly militarized and warlike countries and still lacks access to requisite resources for survival in its own lands. I don't know that we here, in such a sizeable country and on a continent of such comparative peace, can comprehend Israel's situation.

I think they have pushed back too hard. But I can recognize that they are acting the way they are because they feel trapped, not because they wish to dominate the Palestinians. Every time they lessen the restrictions on the Palestinians, the terrorists use it as an opportunity to unleash horrors on Israelis. I can imagine how the U.S., or any nation, would react if people were bombing school buses and restaurants repeatedly. It's a difficult situation, and understanding it requires an understanding of the history of the region which many people have not bothered to learn. In all honesty, I only have the briefest familiarity with it myself - but I know enough to know that Israel is not the only bad guy in this drama.

...but they have been more than a little two-faced about how they portray themselves. As have the Palestinians, of course, but then again they don't have AIPAC to speak for them here.

For me their economic subjugation of Palestine is very troubling. They aren't really interested in a two state solution, they're just using it as PR to continue doing what they've been doing for decades now. The ever-shifting security barrier being exhibit A.

I support Israel, but we need a firmer hand with them. They've been damaging our credibility for decades now.

Remember how fired up some people got about the Iraqi embargo? Cut off people's incomes, take away their jobs, control what goods can flow into a territory and you can do a lot damage and cause a lot of suffering. It's less dramatic than a bombing, but it can be just as effective.

I'd guess that there are many countries in the world where most posters here have never spent time (Tibet, Burma, Afghanistan, Iran, Somalia, to name just a few) but that does not prevent us from following the news and forming valid opinions.

Your response is typical of the problem that arises in all discussion of Israel's actions relative to Palestine. There is a vocal Israeli lobby in the US that continually dismisses and deflects any criticism of Israel and justifies their every action with arguments like the ones being put forward in this thread. These apologists completely ignore the fact that the Palestinians have a legitimate grievance dating back to 1948, and have been trying ever since to negotiate a compromise with a state that believes in expansionism and bullying as the only effective approach to diplomacy.

I have no personal reason to support either side in this conflict, but it's impossible to view the situation in an unbiased way without noticing that Israel's actions and mindset in the middle east mirror those of the US on a global scale. So I guess if you like to see the US playing the role of big brother and throwing its weight around, then you will not see anything amiss in Israel's behavior. But don't try to insist that others are not entitled to analyze the evidence and reach conclusions that disagree with yours.

what they can or cannot analyze. Obviously, on any given topic some people are going to know more than others, and no matter how much one knows they are still entitled to their opinion. If you want to criticize the U.S. that is fine with me because we can be bullies with the best of them sometimes. Iraq has proved that more than anything else. We invaded a country that had done nothing to us. Criticizing Israel without knowing how close everyone there is to death every day, a country that is defending itself, is something quite different. Again, I am not saying they are perfect. I am just trying to point out that we are not in their shoes.

to represent the Palestian POV, but you talk about Israel like it is some inanimate object and we need to take control of it. This is a very complicated problem and I think everyone knows it could have been solved long ago if the Arab countries had wanted to solve it. But they have used Palestine to promote and push their hatred of Israel.

"everyone" - you get one for pointing that out. But I don't think most people understand how close these countries are and how relatively tiny the land is that we are talking about....I am talking about the land that is the buffer area. Is Israel perfect, no...neither are we. I just think we need to let the people in Israel decide the policy that protects them best.

do you know how much of your taxpayer dollars are going to support the Arab countries that surround Israel?

As Jeralyn has already noted, this thread is about Obama and Jewish American voters -- so I don't want to get to far O/T here, but the situation in Israel is considerably more complicated than your comments reflect.

And I would ask both you and Alec82, since he knows so much about the economic subjugation of the Palestinians, what about Palestinians that live in the surrounding Arab countries? What is their economic situation like? If your concern is truly about the Palestinians, then surely you must be well-versed and have opinions about their treatment in states like Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, Kuwait and even Iraq.

but the reality is that the Palestinian people have been screwed by all sides in the process, Israel and the Arab states, and even their own leadership.

I don't know if it's solvable, but hard-line "Israel right or wrong" isn't going to solve it, for sure. Israel would be vastly safer if the Palestinian problem were significantly ameliorated. No clue how to do that, but it's a festering sore that will keep Israel from ever being safe as long as it's allowed to continue.

The Clintons know this. Barack knows this but is unlikely to be competent to do anything about it. McCain doesn't know it.

its declaration. john edwards made the same observation earlier in the week and he is not alone, think biden, dodd, richardson, all former nominees.

withstanding these points of view, i support clinton's continuation of her campaign till the last vote is cast. at this point, the presumption will be confirmed even more decisively than would be the case with her early departure.

meanwhile, the seeds of collaboration are being sewn between the two campaigns and mcbush is about to have the bare knuckles of both to deal with.